AC 812; (September, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 812; September 30, 1969
Gregorio Conde, petitioner, vs. City Judge Nicolas Superable, Jr., Attys. Camilo Superable and Angel Superable, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gregorio Conde filed a complaint for disbarment principally against City Judge Nicolas Superable, Jr. of Tacloban City, and also against his two brothers, Attorneys Camilo and Angel Superable. The charge against Judge Superable was for gross misconduct in office, consisting of alleged acts of harassment, persecution, and oppression. This stemmed from the filing of an unwarranted criminal complaint for libel against Conde and from Conde being cited for contempt, found guilty without due process, and sentenced to imprisonment under an order dated April 1, 1965. The charges against Attorneys Camilo and Angel Superable were for colluding with their brother, the Judge, by instigating persons to fabricate charges against Conde and acting as prosecutors for their brother in a fiscal’s investigation. The case was referred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Investigator’s report recommended complete exoneration for all respondents, finding the evidence insufficient to prove collusion or grave misconduct, though it noted that the contempt charge against Judge Superable had been the subject of a prior administrative case where he was reprimanded by the Department of Justice.
ISSUE
Whether respondents City Judge Nicolas Superable, Jr. and Attorneys Camilo and Angel Superable should be held administratively liable for the charges of gross misconduct, harassment, persecution, oppression, and collusion.
RULING
The Supreme Court did not fully adopt the Investigator’s recommendation of complete exoneration.
1. Regarding City Judge Nicolas Superable, Jr.: The Court found that the charge of grave misconduct for harassment, oppression, and persecution was not substantiated. However, concerning the contempt incident, the Court held that while the evidence did not suffice for a finding of grave misconduct, Judge Superable failed to meet the exacting standard of judicial conduct. He should have exercised greater care to avoid the impression that his personal feelings influenced his actions. For this, he was ADMONISHED, with a warning that repetition of such conduct would be dealt with more severely. The Court noted he had already been administratively reprimanded for this same contempt incident by the Department of Justice.
2. Regarding Attorneys Camilo Superable and Angel Superable: The Court agreed with the Investigator’s recommendation. The charges against them, based on mere allusions and conclusions, were not established by the evidence. They were EXONERATED.
The Court emphasized the high standard of conduct required of judges, who must strive for utmost objectivity and control personal likes and dislikes, ensuring their actions not only are fair but also appear to be fair.